LexLINGALA KONDALA RAO versus VOOTUKURI NARAYANA RAO
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
'
LINGALA KONDALA RAO
v.
VOOTUKURI NARA Y ANA RAO
NOVEMBER 2 I, 2002
[R.C. LAHOTI AND BRJJESH KUMAR, JJ.]
A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960-
S./ 0(3)(a){iii)-Non-residential premises-Eviction of tenant from-landlord,
a member ofJoint Hindu family, having interest in joint family business and
the shops in occupation of the joint family-Exclusively owning a sho~
Filing eviction petition on ground of bona fide requirement to start his own
business in the said shop--Tenant contending that shops in occupation of
joint family were also owned by landlord and thus he is denied the right of
seeking eviction of tenant from the suit premises-Held, joint family premises
in which joint family business is being run and wherein the landlord too has
a share and interest and juridicial possession on account of being a member
of the family would not disentitle the landlord from seeking recovery of
possession from tenant of a non-residential building exclusively owned by him
subject to his satisfying other requirements ofs.10(3)(a)(iii)-A non-residential
building owned by joint Hindu family and in its occupation would not be
included 1vithin the meaning of the expression "which is his own or to the
possession of which he is entitled"-The consistent view of the High Court
and of the authorities below rejecting tenant's contention and allowing
landlord's petition cannot be found fault with.
M Padmanabha Setty v. K.P. Papiah Setty, (1966( 3 SCR 868 followed.
G. Kaushalya Devi (Smt.) v. Ghanshyamdas, (2000( 2 SCC 1, relied
on.
Boorgu Jagadeshwaraiah & Sons v. Pushpa Trading Co., ( l 998] 5 SCC
572, referred to.
Smt. Vidya Bai and Anr. v. Shanker/al and Anr., AIR (1988) A.P. 184,
disapproved.
D. Devaji v. K. Sudarashana Rao, (1994( Supp. l SCC 72, cited.
319
A
B
320
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A
Rent and Eviction:
Landlord and tenant matter-Registered document conferring title on
landlord-Motive behind execution of-Held, cannot be allowed to be gone
into in an eviction suit so long as the document has been executed and registered
in accordance with law-On facts, no member of the family adversely affected
B by the deed of settlement has chosen to lay any challenge to it-Deeds and
documents.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2313 of
1999.
C
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.8.1998 of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court in Civil Revision Petition No. 2000 of 1995.
T.V. Ratnam and K. Subba Rao for the Appellant.
P.S. Narasimha, Ananga Bhattacharya and Sridhar P. for the Respondent.
D
The following Order of the Court was delivered by
A suit for eviction of tenant from non-residential premises based on the
ground available under sub-clause (iii) of Clause (a) of sub-section (3) of
Section 10 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960
E (hereinafter 'the Act', for short), has been decreed by the Controller, which
decree has been upheld in appeal, as also in revision by the High Court. The
tenant-appellant has filed this appeal by special leave.
The facts relevant and admitted or beyond the pale of controversy at
this stage are jejune. The father of the respondent was the owner of the suit
F property. He had let out the suit accommodation-non-residential in nature,
being a shop. The property was self-acquired property of the late father of the
respondent. The family consisted of the father of the resl?ondent, the mother
of the respondent and three sons including the respondent. On 24.6.1988, the
father 'executed a regist~red deed of settlement when~by the suit shop was
G gifted to the respondent. The execution and registration of the deed of
settlement is not in dispute. Consequent thereupon exclusive title in the suit
shop has come to vest in the respondent. In the year 1991, the father of the
respondent died. His other property which also has a few other shops devolved
upon the family consisting of three sons and their widow mother. The shops
other than the suit premises are in occupation of the joint family and also
H owned by it. So far as the suit shop is concerned, it is owned exclusively by
.,..
L. K. RAO v. V.N. RAO
321
the respondent and is in occupation of the appellant-tenant.
A
The bonafide requirement of the respondent for the suit shop for
commencing his own business has been found proved by all the three Courts
concurrently. The sole question arising for decision in this appeal cenExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.